What I find really strange about this is I use AI a lot as a “smart friend” to work through explanations of things I find difficult etc and I am currently preparing for some exams so I will often give the AI a document and ask for some supporting resources to take the subject further and it almost always produces something that is plausibly close to a real thing but wrong in specifics. As in when you ask for a reference it is almost invariably a hallucination. So it just amazes me that anyone would just stick that in a brief and ship it without checking it even more than they would check the work of a human underling (which they should obviously also check for something this important).
For example, yesterday I got a list of some study resources for abstract algebra. Claude referred me to a series by Benedict Gross (Which is excellent btw). It gave me a line to harvard’s website but it was a 404 and it was only with further searching that I found the real thing. It also suggested a youtube playlist by Socratica (again this exists but the url was wrong) and one by Michael Penn (same deal).
Literally every reference was almost right but actually wrong. How does anyone have the confidence to ship a legal brief that an AI produced without checking it thoroughly?
I think it's easy to understand why people are overestimating the accuracy and performance of LLM-based output: it's currently being touted as the replacement for human labor in a large number of fields. Outside of software development there are fewer optimistic skeptics and much less nuanced takes on the tech.
Casually scrolling through TechCrunch I see over $1B in very recent investments into legal-focused startups alone. You can't push the messaging that the technology to replace humans is here and expect people will also know intrinsically that they need to do the work of checking the output. It runs counter to the massive public rollout of these products which have a simple pitch: we are going to replace the work of human employees.
I take the charitable view that some high profile people painted themselves into a corner very publicly. I think they made an estimation that they could work out the kinks as they went, but it's becoming apparent that the large early gains were not sustainable. And now there appears to be some very fundamental limitations to what this architecture can achieve and everyone involved has basically little option other than to keep doubling down. I expect this to blow up spectacularly pretty soon.
People are lazy. I’m enrolled in a language class in a foreign country right now - so presumably people taking that class want to actually get good at the language so they can actually live their life here - yet a significant portion of students just turn in ChatGPT essays.
And I don’t mean essays edited with chatGPT, but essays that are clearly verbatim output. When the teacher asks the students to read them out loud to the class, they will stumble upon words and grammar that are way obviously way beyond anything we’ve studied. The utter lack of self awareness is both funny but also really sad.
I’m a programmer who speaks English and Japanese as foreign languages. My colleagues have access to LLMs, and before that google translate and DeepL. Yet still I am asked a lot about my cultural opinion on how to approach the Japanese side, even in English. Perhaps this serves as a hint to you that robotic translation is not everything.
There are a lot of shit tier lawyers who are just in it for the money and just barely passed their exams. Given his notoriety, Lindell is scraping the bottom of the barrel with people willing to provide legal services.
could it be that they just have to attend the class for technical reasons? Also - once the gadgets can translate for free in real time ... you can live in places you don't speak the language of, so maybe they are just prepping for that.
LLMs were originally designed for translation, so it makes sense. We have basically elimated the need to learn foreign languages for day to day use anyway, its only helpful for high professional tasks or close literary study or prestige.
What this story tells us more than anything is that Lindell cannot convince a competent lawyer to defend him, so what he gets instead are clownshod phonies. Either he’s out of cash, or he’s such a terrible client that nobody with a shred of professional responsibility will take him.
My social studies teacher in 8th grade throughout the year would give us a list of things and phrases by decade. Loved these assignments. Totally threw myself into them. Years later, I was working at a prep school and wanted the students to be assigned Billy Joel's We Didn't Start the Fire as a similar assignment (competition?). Teachers thought it was stupid, that the kids wouldn't like it (um, who cares?), and that it was too hard. Teacher's responses only confirmed what I thought about the school (meh) and that it was a sad day that curiosity was a bad thing. (I was the fundraiser for the school so I didn't really interact with the kids a lot but ones I knew would have had fun with such a project).
Anyway, the Lindell lawyers must have gone to this school, or one like it. How is it ever okay to do this and think it's a good idea? And, how the heck did these people pass the Bar?
Which version of GPT? I've found that 4o has actually been quite good at this lately, rarely hallucinating links any more.
Just two days ago, I gave it a list of a dozen article titles from a newspaper website (The Guardian), asked it to look up their URLs and give me a list, and to summarise each article for me, and it made no mistakes at all.
Maybe your task was more complicated to do in some way, maybe you're not paying for ChatGPT and are on a less able model, or maybe it's a question of learning how to prompt, I don't know, I just know that for me it's gone from "assume sources cited are bullshit" to "verify each one still, but they're usually correct".
> How does anyone have the confidence to ship a legal brief that an AI produced without checking it thoroughly?
It has likely never occurred to them that such checks are necessary. Why would it, if they've never performed such checks, nor happen to have been warned by AI critics?
>For example, yesterday I got a list of some study resources for abstract algebra. Claude referred me to a series by Benedict Gross (Which is excellent btw). It gave me a line to harvard’s website but it was a 404 and it was only with further searching that I found the real thing. It also suggested a youtube playlist by Socratica (again this exists but the url was wrong) and one by Michael Penn (same deal).
FWIW, I've found Penn's content to be quite long-winded and poorly edited. The key idea being presented often makes up hardly any of the video's runtime, so I'm just sitting there watching the guy actually write out the steps solving an equation (and making trivial errors, and not always correcting them).
> How does anyone have the confidence to ship a legal brief that an AI produced without checking it thoroughly?
Because its makers don't care about precision or correctness. They care only about convincing the people that matter that gaping software bugs are "hallucinations" that can never be fixed 100%, and that that is an acceptable outcome.
For every story about AI-assisted legal briefs with tons of mistakes, there will be 100 PR-ridden pieces about how $LATEST_VERSION has passed the bar exam or has discovered a miracle drug. There will never be a story about AI successfully arguing a real case however, because the main goal was only about selling a vision of labor replacement. Whether or not the replacement can do the job as specified is immaterial.
Everything you’ve said is correct. Now picture a quiet spread of subtle defects seeping through countless codebases, borne on the euphoria of GenAI driven “productivity”. When those flaws surface, the coming AI winter will be long and bitter.
Lindell's lawyer claimed that somehow the preliminary copy (before human editing) got submitted to the court - that they actually did the work to fix it, but then slipped up in submitting it.
I could see that, especially with sloppy lawyers in the first place. Or, I could see it being a convenient "the dog ate my homework" excuse.
The media really hypes the capabilities up, so if you're new to it and it spews out something that looks very detailed and plausible, you just think "wow it worked". They would have no instinct for the failure modes either. The reference points here would be like a paralegal or a computer search tool. You would only really expect errors of omission: the paralegal wants to keep their job, and search cannot find things that don't exist. In that frame of mind when you see that the returned document seems to cover the relevant points and makes sense when you skim it, it seems like job done. The public doesn't get that the LLM will just completely bold-faced make stuff up.
I use it in much the same way as you, and it's been extremely beneficial. But I also would not dream of signing my name on something that has been independently produced by AI, it's just too often blatantly wrong on specifics.
I think people who do are simply not aware that AI is not deterministic the same way a calculator is. I would feel entirely safe signing my name on a mathematical result produced by a calculator (assuming I trusted my own input).
LLMs are deterministic [0]. An LLM is a pure function that takes a list of tokens and returns a set of token probabilities. To make it "chat" you use the generated probabilities to pick a token, append that token to the list, and run the LLM again. Any randomness is introduced by the external component that picks a token using the probabilities: the sampler. Always picking the most likely token is a valid strategy.
The problem is that all output is a "hallucination", and only some of it coincidentally matches the truth. There's no internal distinction between hallucination and truth.
[0] Theoretically; race conditions in a parallel implementation could add non-determinism.
> How does anyone have the confidence to ship a legal brief that an AI produced without checking it thoroughly?
They're treating it like they would a paralegal. Typically this means giving a research task and then using their results, but sometimes lawyers will just have them write documents and ship it, so to speak.
This is making me realize that Tech Bros treat chat GPT like the 1930s secretary they never got to have
> Wang ordered attorneys Christopher Kachouroff and Jennifer DeMaster to show cause as to why the court should not sanction the defendants, law firm, and individual attorneys. Kachouroff and DeMaster also have to explain why they should not be referred to disciplinary proceedings for violations of the rules of professional conduct.
Glad to see that this is the outcome. Similar to bribes and other similar issues, the hammer has to be big and heavy so that people stop considering this as an option.
> "[T]he Court identified nearly thirty defective citations in the Opposition. These defects include but are not limited to misquotes of cited cases; misrepresentations of principles of law associated with cited cases, including discussions of legal principles that simply do not appear within such decisions; misstatements regarding whether case law originated from a binding authority such as the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; misattributions of case law to this District; and most egregiously, citation of cases that do not exist," US District Judge Nina Wang wrote in an order to show cause Wednesday
30+ years ago when I was in law school [1] I would practice legal research by debunking sovereign citizen and related claims on Usenet. The errors listed above are pretty much a catalog of common sovereign citizen legal research errors.
Just add something about gold fringed flags and Admiralty jurisdiction and it would be nearly complete.
The sovereign citizen documents I debunked were usually not written by lawyers. At best the only legal experience the authors usually had was as defendants who had represented themselves and lost.
Even they usually managed to only get a couple major errors per document. That these lawyers managed to get such a range of errors in one filing is impressive.
[1] I am not a lawyer. Do not take anything I write as legal advice. Near the end of law school I decided I'd rather be a programmer with a good knowledge of law than a lawyer with a good knowledge of programming and went back to software.
I constantly see people reply to question with "I asked ChatGPT for you and this is what it says" without a hint of the shame they should feel. The willingness to just accept plausible-sounding AI spew uncritically and without further investigation seems to be baked into some people.
At least those folks are acknowledging the source. It's the ones who ask ChatGPT and then give the answer as if it were their own that are likely to cause more of a problem.
That sort of response seems not too different from the classic "let me google that for you". It seems to me that it is a way to express that the answer to the question can be "trivially" obtained yourself by doing research on your own. Alternatively it can be interpreted as "I don't know anything more than Google/ChatGPT does".
What annoys me more about this type of response is that I feel there's a less rude way to express the same.
Go look at "The Credit Card Song" from 1974. It's intended to be humorous, but the idea of uncritically accepting anything a computer said was prevalent enough then to give the song an underlying basis.
'member the moral panic when students started (often uncritically) using Wikipedia ?
Ah, we didn't knew just how good we had it...
(At least it is (was ?) real humans doing the writing, you can look at modification history, well made articles have sources, and you can debate issues with the article in the Talk page and even maybe contribute directly to it...)
The Judge spent the time to do exactly this. Judges are busy. Their time is valuable. The lawyer used AI to make the judge do work. The lawyer was too lazy to do the verification work that they expected the judge to perform. This speaks to a profound level of disrespect.
This. As a junior lawyer at a large law firm, one of my jobs was checking every cited case to confirm that it was cited correctly, that it actually supported the theory that it was being used to support, and that it hadn't been overturned or qualified by subsequent case law. It's a process called Shepardizing that every law student does. So I can't fathom how fictitious cases could possibly be included in a brief. Also, just slightly mischaracterizing a case in a brief could be cause for being sanctioned. So I don't see how this type of issue would not undoubtedly result in sanctions.
One of the defining characteristics of this crop of alt-right, populist nutters is disdain for experts. Doesn't work so well when they need legal or medical advice.
There's a quote I can't find right now about how fascism is associated with lower competence because it not only prioritizes but demands loyalty over all else and you get a bench made up of just the best asskissers, ideologues, extremists.
Because competent lawyers tend to adhere to professional standards and codes of ethics, which makes them more selective in the work and clients they take on.
Some of the prominent people on the right have tried to ignore the law, to not let the law modify their behavior, fighting off lawsuit after lawsuit, and adverse ruling after adverse ruling. If you're going to do that, you have to file a lot of motions. That seems to drive an emphasis on volume rather than quality of motions in reply. At least, that's my perspective as an outside observer.
The problem is that Trump, Musk, Lindell, etc are all extremely arrogant and constantly disregard sound legal advice. Their lawyers aren't merely associated with a controversial client; their professional reputation is put at risk because they might lose easily winnable cases due to a client's dumb tweet. You have to be a crappy lawyer (or an unethical enforcer like Alex Spiro and Roy Cohn) to even want to work with them.
>The problem is that Trump, Musk, Lindell, etc are all extremely arrogant and constantly disregard sound legal advice. Their lawyers aren't merely associated with a controversial client; their professional reputation is put at risk because they might lose easily winnable cases due to a client's dumb tweet.
Bingo. This has nothing to do with ideology. Good lawyers like to win. And when a client is demonstrably too stupid to let them do that, why bother.
It's not like there are many lawyers left who are willing to represent them. Either because they have behaved so utterly vile like Alex Jones, the case is so clear cut due to their own behavior that there is zero chance of achieving more than a token reduction in sentence (while risking the ire of the clueless fanbase for a "bad defense job") like in this case, or because they have a history of not paying their bills like Trump.
That leaves only those as lawyers who already have zero reputation left to lose, want to make a name for themselves in the far-right scene, who are members of the cult as well, and those who think they can milk an already dead/insolvent horse.
Jones is a good example of this. He cycled through about 20 different lawyers during the sandyhook trials. The reason he was defaulted is because when he was required to produce something, he fire the lawyers (or they'd quit), hire new ones, and invariably in the depositions an answer to "did you bring this document the court mandated that you produce" the answer was "oh, sorry, I'm brand new to this case and didn't know anything about that".
Jones wasn't cooperating with his lawyers.
There are plenty of good lawyers that have no problem representing far right figures. The issue really comes down to those figures being willing to follow their lawyer's advice.
The really bad lawyers simply don't care if their clients ignore their advice.
They think everyone is doing it and not getting caught.
Everything the right accuses anyone of, they're doing it too. That's why they don't really care about criminals and pedophiles and racists in their ranks. They think everyone is a child diddling criminal racist.
The attorney for porn actress who had an affair with a political candidate who embezzled funds to pay her off does have a certain similarity or common nexus to an attorney for key member of the presidential whack pack.
I don’t think that nexus is political, for either party. It’s all tied to one man.
This seems like both-sidesism at its worst. Michael Avenatti is one man, and he represented Stormy Daniels, who is hardly a significant figure on the left compared to Rudy Giuliani or Mike Lindell. I don't see Democrat-leaning CEOs (e.g. Howard Schultz) hiring lawyers like this. And Trump's lawyers are far worse than Biden's!
Everything about this entire situation is comically dumb, but shows how far the US has degraded, that this is meaningful news. If this were a fiction book, people would dismiss it as being lazy writing - an ultra conservative CEO of a pillow company spreads voting conspiracies leading to a lawsuit in which they hire lawyers that risk losing the case because they relied on AI.
Quite dumb. If it were a book it would be "Infinite Jest", and the receipts of everyone who bought the pillows could be used to enter into some inane raffle.
‘Murica is currently the most notable nation run by a cult of personality. Clown car legal maneuvers of politicians and politician-adjacent people isn’t supposed to be like this.
How ? The issue seems to have been that they had not revealed that LLMs were involved in the creation of the multiple choice questions. The questions/answers themselves seem to have passed the bar ? (no pun intended)
A much worse failure seems to have been the incompetent software to run the tests. And that for something as high level they would have decided to do it through the mediation of a computer as well as used multiple choice questions in the first place.
> ... response to the widespread disruptions, the Committee of Bar Examiners, or CBE, voted on April 18 to lower the raw passing score for the February exam from 560 to 534, “two standard errors of measurement below ...
Although different states are involved, perhaps this goes some way toward explaining how Lindell's lawyers could have passed their bar exams.
I'm not too familiar with his lawyers, but I suspect they passed their exams a long time ago in another state.
Bar exams are funny things. Most states have a reciprocity with the NY bar, so when you think lawyer, think the NY bar.
But California is considered a harder bar to pass and has little reciprocity.
Somewhat surprisingly the hardest bar is Louisiana's. This is because their legal system is a crawdad fucking mess. They inherited their code based system from the French for a lot of local matters, but then also have to deal with the precedent based system the rest of the US uses. So you have to memorize two completely different types of law at a very high level. So, if you ever meet a Louisiana lawyer, you know you've met a very intelligent and dedicated person.
Call me optimistic but we only hear about the mistakes AI makes not the successes in stories like these. Failing to review the output is the real issue in my opinion. A machine writing a legal brief and only making 30 mistakes is still incredible.
Readit News
For example, yesterday I got a list of some study resources for abstract algebra. Claude referred me to a series by Benedict Gross (Which is excellent btw). It gave me a line to harvard’s website but it was a 404 and it was only with further searching that I found the real thing. It also suggested a youtube playlist by Socratica (again this exists but the url was wrong) and one by Michael Penn (same deal).
Literally every reference was almost right but actually wrong. How does anyone have the confidence to ship a legal brief that an AI produced without checking it thoroughly?
Casually scrolling through TechCrunch I see over $1B in very recent investments into legal-focused startups alone. You can't push the messaging that the technology to replace humans is here and expect people will also know intrinsically that they need to do the work of checking the output. It runs counter to the massive public rollout of these products which have a simple pitch: we are going to replace the work of human employees.
And I don’t mean essays edited with chatGPT, but essays that are clearly verbatim output. When the teacher asks the students to read them out loud to the class, they will stumble upon words and grammar that are way obviously way beyond anything we’ve studied. The utter lack of self awareness is both funny but also really sad.
My social studies teacher in 8th grade throughout the year would give us a list of things and phrases by decade. Loved these assignments. Totally threw myself into them. Years later, I was working at a prep school and wanted the students to be assigned Billy Joel's We Didn't Start the Fire as a similar assignment (competition?). Teachers thought it was stupid, that the kids wouldn't like it (um, who cares?), and that it was too hard. Teacher's responses only confirmed what I thought about the school (meh) and that it was a sad day that curiosity was a bad thing. (I was the fundraiser for the school so I didn't really interact with the kids a lot but ones I knew would have had fun with such a project).
Anyway, the Lindell lawyers must have gone to this school, or one like it. How is it ever okay to do this and think it's a good idea? And, how the heck did these people pass the Bar?
Edit: List of references in We Didn't Start the Fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_references_in_We_Didn%.... Gonna blog the references and this post on my little policy blog this week :-)
Just two days ago, I gave it a list of a dozen article titles from a newspaper website (The Guardian), asked it to look up their URLs and give me a list, and to summarise each article for me, and it made no mistakes at all.
Maybe your task was more complicated to do in some way, maybe you're not paying for ChatGPT and are on a less able model, or maybe it's a question of learning how to prompt, I don't know, I just know that for me it's gone from "assume sources cited are bullshit" to "verify each one still, but they're usually correct".
It has likely never occurred to them that such checks are necessary. Why would it, if they've never performed such checks, nor happen to have been warned by AI critics?
>For example, yesterday I got a list of some study resources for abstract algebra. Claude referred me to a series by Benedict Gross (Which is excellent btw). It gave me a line to harvard’s website but it was a 404 and it was only with further searching that I found the real thing. It also suggested a youtube playlist by Socratica (again this exists but the url was wrong) and one by Michael Penn (same deal).
FWIW, I've found Penn's content to be quite long-winded and poorly edited. The key idea being presented often makes up hardly any of the video's runtime, so I'm just sitting there watching the guy actually write out the steps solving an equation (and making trivial errors, and not always correcting them).
Because its makers don't care about precision or correctness. They care only about convincing the people that matter that gaping software bugs are "hallucinations" that can never be fixed 100%, and that that is an acceptable outcome.
For every story about AI-assisted legal briefs with tons of mistakes, there will be 100 PR-ridden pieces about how $LATEST_VERSION has passed the bar exam or has discovered a miracle drug. There will never be a story about AI successfully arguing a real case however, because the main goal was only about selling a vision of labor replacement. Whether or not the replacement can do the job as specified is immaterial.
I could see that, especially with sloppy lawyers in the first place. Or, I could see it being a convenient "the dog ate my homework" excuse.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
I think people who do are simply not aware that AI is not deterministic the same way a calculator is. I would feel entirely safe signing my name on a mathematical result produced by a calculator (assuming I trusted my own input).
The problem is that all output is a "hallucination", and only some of it coincidentally matches the truth. There's no internal distinction between hallucination and truth.
[0] Theoretically; race conditions in a parallel implementation could add non-determinism.
They're treating it like they would a paralegal. Typically this means giving a research task and then using their results, but sometimes lawyers will just have them write documents and ship it, so to speak.
This is making me realize that Tech Bros treat chat GPT like the 1930s secretary they never got to have
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
Glad to see that this is the outcome. Similar to bribes and other similar issues, the hammer has to be big and heavy so that people stop considering this as an option.
30+ years ago when I was in law school [1] I would practice legal research by debunking sovereign citizen and related claims on Usenet. The errors listed above are pretty much a catalog of common sovereign citizen legal research errors.
Just add something about gold fringed flags and Admiralty jurisdiction and it would be nearly complete.
The sovereign citizen documents I debunked were usually not written by lawyers. At best the only legal experience the authors usually had was as defendants who had represented themselves and lost.
Even they usually managed to only get a couple major errors per document. That these lawyers managed to get such a range of errors in one filing is impressive.
[1] I am not a lawyer. Do not take anything I write as legal advice. Near the end of law school I decided I'd rather be a programmer with a good knowledge of law than a lawyer with a good knowledge of programming and went back to software.
Way too many people think that LLMs understand the content in their dataset.
What annoys me more about this type of response is that I feel there's a less rude way to express the same.
Ah, we didn't knew just how good we had it...
(At least it is (was ?) real humans doing the writing, you can look at modification history, well made articles have sources, and you can debate issues with the article in the Talk page and even maybe contribute directly to it...)
Dead Comment
He’s a bankrupt, likely mentally ill acolyte of a dude who is infamous for stiffing his lawyers. His connection with reality is tenuous at best.
Bingo. This has nothing to do with ideology. Good lawyers like to win. And when a client is demonstrably too stupid to let them do that, why bother.
That leaves only those as lawyers who already have zero reputation left to lose, want to make a name for themselves in the far-right scene, who are members of the cult as well, and those who think they can milk an already dead/insolvent horse.
Jones is a good example of this. He cycled through about 20 different lawyers during the sandyhook trials. The reason he was defaulted is because when he was required to produce something, he fire the lawyers (or they'd quit), hire new ones, and invariably in the depositions an answer to "did you bring this document the court mandated that you produce" the answer was "oh, sorry, I'm brand new to this case and didn't know anything about that".
Jones wasn't cooperating with his lawyers.
There are plenty of good lawyers that have no problem representing far right figures. The issue really comes down to those figures being willing to follow their lawyer's advice.
The really bad lawyers simply don't care if their clients ignore their advice.
Everything the right accuses anyone of, they're doing it too. That's why they don't really care about criminals and pedophiles and racists in their ranks. They think everyone is a child diddling criminal racist.
Rememebr Michael Avenatti?
I don’t think that nexus is political, for either party. It’s all tied to one man.
But here we have an example of someone not escaping justice due to his now-evaporated wealth. I'd call it a positive.
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/controversy-californi...
The lawyer jokes aren't funny anymore...
A much worse failure seems to have been the incompetent software to run the tests. And that for something as high level they would have decided to do it through the mediation of a computer as well as used multiple choice questions in the first place.
Although different states are involved, perhaps this goes some way toward explaining how Lindell's lawyers could have passed their bar exams.
Bar exams are funny things. Most states have a reciprocity with the NY bar, so when you think lawyer, think the NY bar.
But California is considered a harder bar to pass and has little reciprocity.
Somewhat surprisingly the hardest bar is Louisiana's. This is because their legal system is a crawdad fucking mess. They inherited their code based system from the French for a lot of local matters, but then also have to deal with the precedent based system the rest of the US uses. So you have to memorize two completely different types of law at a very high level. So, if you ever meet a Louisiana lawyer, you know you've met a very intelligent and dedicated person.
Obligatory IANAL here.